[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/

RFM discussion: December 2014–March 2017

edit
 

The following discussion has been moved from Wiktionary:Requests for moves, mergers and splits (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.


Lewis and Short do not have this. They have satin'. If you think this should be RfVed, I would not object. DCDuring TALK 19:29, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply

I doubt an RFV will be helpful here. The original manuscripts will definitely not have an apostrophe on this word; modern editions may or may not depending on the editor's preference. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:30, 26 December 2014 (UTC)Reply
@DCDuring, Angr: See, for example, these two, which both omit the apostrophe. The trouble is, AFAICT, this contraction only occurs in the works of T. Maccius Plautus, which makes it Old Latin (itc-ola), as opposed to Classical Latin (la). Still, the form with the apostrophe and the form without are on all fours with regard to that issue, I suppose. — I.S.M.E.T.A. 00:41, 24 August 2015 (UTC)Reply
Left where it is per Angr's comment that the original manuscripts are unlikely to have the apostrophe. If the term is not Latin la but rather Old Latin, please update the language header. There is a hard redirect at satin'; I don't mind any anyone updates it to a soft redirect ({{alternative form of}} or a similar template). - -sche (discuss) 17:49, 27 March 2017 (UTC)Reply